Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [3/3] Coccinelle: pci_free_consistent: Extend when constraints for two SmPL ellipses | From | Markus Elfring <> | Date | Wed, 15 May 2019 13:18:29 +0200 |
| |
Am 15.05.19 um 12:19 schrieb Julia Lawall: > > > On Wed, 15 May 2019, Markus Elfring wrote: > >>>>> On the other hand, I do care about causing false negatives. >>>> >>>> Do you find the missing warning after the addition of such an exclusion >>>> specification interesting? >>> >>> I already suggested how to improve the code. >> >> I find that the idea “e2->fld” needs further clarification. >> Such a SmPL specification will be resolved also to an expression, >> won't it? > > Saving in a local variable doesn't impact the need to free the object.
I suggest to reconsider this view.
Would we like to introduce additional case distinctions for the handling of reassignments to local variables (as shown in Wen's test case)?
> A field is the most obvious case where the object may not need freeing.
A corresponding resource release should probably be performed by an other function then.
> But there are many expressions that e2->fld will not match.
Data structure members can eventually belong also to a local variable. Would they become relevant for further SmPL exclusion specifications?
Regards, Markus
| |